Nadal and Djokovic would not have survived the 80's and 90's - Becker

Not necessary. There would be more chances for them to attack thus improve their net game, but they still can be a baseliner. Agassi strictly sticks behind the baseline and he had a great career, winning on fast court like Wimbledon, USO and Master Cup. And Agassi didn't have full commitment in the 90s. Since Nadal/Nole > Agassi, they would do just fine, and drastically reduce the level of domination from serve/volley players.

Click to expand...

Agassi had an uncanny ability to get clean swipes at the ball and take the ball earlier which required less running around like Nole and Nadal. Agassi was probably the cleanest hitter in history and possibly the best return of serve ever.

In that respect Andre was much more of an attacker then other two which could help him see success on all surfaces. I doubt either would see the same success Andre did because of that.

Nadal would probably rack up French Open titles (though to the same degree? Who knows.. Hes more of a product of the poly era so he couldn't generate the same rpms on the spin without the poly).. Nole would win some AO titles but doubtful he would ever a wimbledon or USO under the old conditions).

They both could win some slams on their best surfaces, but to have the same success in the 90s as they do now? No way. They are slow court players.. Fast surfaces a different animal. Especially for those who require the conditions so they can thrive on their defensive abilities

No doubt Becker believes what he is saying, but....it is just impossible to know.

Had Nadal been born 15 years earlier, how many GS would he have won? 5? 10? 3? 6? It is just impossible to know.

And exactly the same with any other player. How many GS would Federer have won had he been born 10 or 20 years earlier? 5? 20? 3? 10?

It is just impossible to know.

All these across-different-eras hypotheticals are totally senseless.

It is more, even inside a period of time where conditions (courts and balls and racquets and strings) stayed more or less the same (for example, from 1983 to 1995 ), it doesn't make sense to say that Sampras was "greater" than Lendl, or Agassi was "greater" than McEnroe, because 10 years apart is TOO MUCH (they really developed in different "eras", played mostly against different fields of players, even if they overlap a bit).

Let alone trying to compare players from that era with players like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe....from the wood era, or with players from the current homogenization-slow-polystring era.

Becker was a big server himself. So, he's preaching for his church, makes sense. He's just forgetting that his era saw the best returner of the game succeed, as gifted a returner as Djoko and Nadal: namely Agassi.

Becker had a bad head-to-head record against Agassi because he kept on trying to beat Agassi at his own game, and it never worked.

Click to expand...

exactly! and he never S@V half the time. Also in an interview i heard Becker say after retirement him and Agassi were having coffee somewhere and he asked Agassi how he knew where his serve was going all the time. And Agassi replied that Becker always had as tongue out whenever he went for the slider on the sides. :lol:

exactly! and he never S@V half the time. Also in an interview i heard Becker say after retirement him and Agassi were having coffee somewhere and he asked Agassi how he knew where his serve was going all the time. And Agassi replied that Becker always had as tongue out whenever he went for the slider on the sides. :lol:

Becker was a big server himself. So, he's preaching for his church, makes sense. He's just forgetting that his era saw the best returner of the game succeed, as gifted a returner as Djoko and Nadal: namely Agassi.

Click to expand...

Nadal isn't in the same category as Djokovic and Agassi in terms of purely return.

Legendary tennis player Boris Becker rated Roger Federer very highly and said due to his sound technique the Swiss probably could have been the only player to have competed successfully in the "serve and volley" era.

"The reason why Federer is still successful at the age of 31 is because he has got a good technique. He can play from the baseline and when he has to, he can also come to the net more often than other players," Becker said during an event.

"I don't think (Rafael) Nadal or (Novak) Djokovic would have been so successful in the era of serve and volley but Federer could have played," the German added.

Click to expand...

Isn't it much more than that, I mean Borg and Conners were more baseliners and did well, I think it's more that the courts were much faster, so they would struggle, while someone like Fed would have won many more GS's than he has on the slower surfaces of today.

There's no reason to be sad because that's how it should be. Every sports evolve. Actually it would be sad if sports regress.

Click to expand...

That's not true, no boxing expert in their right mind would compare the fighters of today with those of the 70's, the top guy today wouldn't even be ranked in the top 20, boxing has devolved. Likewise the guys of the 70's would easily beat the guys of the 40's and 50's, short bald guys with big bellies, no movement, yet weighing around 180 pounds going up against a 220 pound, fast, monster.

All sports evolve, devolve, so it's very hard to compare one era to another. Marciano for example was undefeated in his era, yet he wouldn't crack the top 10 in 1974.

Legendary tennis player Boris Becker rated Roger Federer very highly and said due to his sound technique the Swiss probably could have been the only player to have competed successfully in the "serve and volley" era.

"The reason why Federer is still successful at the age of 31 is because he has got a good technique. He can play from the baseline and when he has to, he can also come to the net more often than other players," Becker said during an event.

"I don't think (Rafael) Nadal or (Novak) Djokovic would have been so successful in the era of serve and volley but Federer could have played," the German added.

Click to expand...

The redhead flash in the pan becker was never half the player of joker or rafa. This is hilarious coming from someone that is not even close to their accomplishments.

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

Click to expand...

Djokovic and Nadal and skill sets are not words that should be used in one sentence (if it's meant to be a complimentary one). Becker could have gone on to say Federer would be on 40+ Slams if he was born a decade earlier. That's how much ahead he is in shotmaking and tennis intelligence as opposed to any of his peers. The surfaces are an unfortunate corcumstance we cannot circumnavigate but since Becker raised the subject (of a hypothetical comparison) I think it would have been a reasonable haul for the Swiss genius.

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

We can never know. But the 1990s clay scene had very little serve and volley. The clay scene at that time was actually an early sign of the sort of gruelling matches we see today, full of engrossing rallies. One guy definitely harmed by the more modern game compared to 1990s conditions is Lleyton Hewitt. He loved playing against serve and volleyers who pressured him at the net.

Nadal in the 1990s would have played a lot more on clay and a lot less on hardcourts.

Becker is just being a sour puss because Rafa has eclipsed his accomplishments and Djoker is on his way to do the same. Nobody here knows, whether you are a pro player has been or not, how Rafa or Djoker would have fared in the 70s, 80s, 90s.

Who's here to say how each one would have adapted to a specific era to dominate like they did. Everything here are mere speculations which are all dependent on our respective bias and allegiance because nobody here will ever know. Just My 2 cents.

I remember how many big points these s/v players have lost rushing to the net, and not trying to construct one point from the baseline.I remember them doing that in situations even if it didn't have any sense.I understand people who don't like endless baseline game, but on the others hand it's a great way to disturb other player's rhythm on his service game.If you jerk him around the court, it's a great possibility that's he's going to miss some first serves, it's even more effective against big guys.

Players are products of their era. Even Federer, who was playing S&V in his first major WB outings, has cut it out for the most part and stuck to baseline rallies. Edberg, THE S&V er, said that if he played in today's era he would mostly stay back.

Both Nadal and Djokovic said that they really wanted to win WB. In this era, they had it easier with the bigger ball bouce so that they didn't have to make major changes in their baseline game but if they were born earlier on they would've probably adopted a different style to try and win on most surfaces(or at least for the big titles).

Obviously, no matter what era you're in, you're gonna lean one way or another but I don't know why people automatically assume that today's defensive players would've automatically been so in the past as well. Nadal was very offensive in his early teens(with a Gonzalez like forehand at times), Djokovic was much more aggressive circa 2008, Murray has his moments of offensive brilliance. It's just that 7-8 years ago, most tourneys started following WB's example and slowed down their courts so most players starting taking note and dialed down their offense.

I mean, even Federer is less agressive than he used to be in his peak and it's no coincidence that all top 5 guys are tremendous defenders(yes, even Federer).

What Becker said is very relative. I could just as easily say that the big S&V'er Becker would be eaten alive in today's tennis but that wouldn't be fair nor true.

Becker was a big server himself. So, he's preaching for his church, makes sense. He's just forgetting that his era saw the best returner of the game succeed, as gifted a returner as Djoko and Nadal: namely Agassi.

Give me a break, hater. Becker won six slams and was a great player. His opinion may not have any merit given that it is all speculation anyway, but that doesn't change anything about his career.

Just a quick number check for you: six is one more than five, and more than half of eleven. Not to mention he won his last slam more than ten years after his first.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you NadalDramaQueen. One thing is certain. Boris Becker's opinion takes precedence over Tlm's opinion any day of the week, and that is according to Tlm's own rating sytem for credibility, which is who has won more grand slams.

I better duck, there will probably be a tennis can coming at my head any moment!

Stepanek and Llodra both played serve and volley against Ferrer's all court game and both lost recently. Very exciting to watch I must say but both server & volleyers lost in straight sets if I recall correctly.

I totally agree with you NadalDramaQueen. One thing is certain. Boris Becker's opinion takes precedence over Tlm's opinion any day of the week, and that is according to Tlm's own rating sytem for credibility, which is who has won more grand slams.

I better duck, there will probably be a tennis can coming at my head any moment!

Click to expand...

Whatever you and your dramaqueen want to dream about is okay. But when you wake up Rafa has won all 4 majors on every surface. Has won the gold medal at the olympics, and there is a very short list of players in the history of the game that have won more majors than him. But some how in your dream state 6 majors compares to 11. Plus again he is not yet done.

Joker played one of if not the best single season performances of all time in 2011. Plus he is just now in his prime and will certainly surpass becker. And again joker or rafa would smack beckers *** right off the court.

Whatever you and your dramaqueen want to dream about is okay. But when you wake up Rafa has won all 4 majors on every surface. Has won the gold medal at the olympics, and there is a very short list of players in the history of the game that have won more majors than him. But some how in your dream state 6 majors compares to 11. Plus again he is not yet done.

Joker played one of if not the best single season performances of all time in 2011. Plus he is just now in his prime and will certainly surpass becker. And again joker or rafa would smack beckers *** right off the court.

Click to expand...

None of that changes the fact that Becker is a great player.

On what surface would Nadal and Djoker smack Becker on? Not on a fast indoor hard court, that's for sure. Especially not Rafa.

Seriously, tlm, spend some time on your own pathetic forehand before you hate on great tennis players.

Stepanek and Llodra both played serve and volley against Ferrer's all court game and both lost recently. Very exciting to watch I must say but both server & volleyers lost in straight sets if I recall correctly.

Click to expand...

That is why s+v is dead in todays game it just will not work on a consistent basis.

I would already rate Djokovic above Becker. On grass Becker is obviously light years superior, but on all types of hard courts and clay Djokovic is already way ahead. Indoors is hard to compare as there arent many indoor events today, I am sure Becker at his peak was better ability wise on carpet, but Djokovic has a good chance to win as many or more YEC Championships and it is not his fault they arent regularly on indoor carpet like they used to be.

The main thing though is Djokovic's best year of 2011 destroys Becker's best year of 1989, and on top of that Djokovic has already been more consistent and impressive across all surfaces over a longer span (6 years, 2007-2012) than Becker ever was for such a long stretch. Add to that Djokovic's back to back year end #1s vs Becker who never managed it.

As for surface conditions, Becker and Djokovic are equally fortunate they play in the right era for their games. Becker would struggle even moreso in todays conditions than Djokovic might in 90s conditions.

On what surface would Nadal and Djoker smack Becker on? Not on a fast indoor hard court, that's for sure. Especially not Rafa.

Seriously, tlm, spend some time on your own pathetic forehand before you hate on great tennis players.

Click to expand...

Oh ya a fast indoor hard court. I never new they played majors on those. I never said that becker was not a good player, but he is just talking trash because both rafa and joker are better than him.

Its funny I played in a 4.0 summer league and my record was 15-6. I am now playing in a usta 4.0 flex league and I am 6-0. And whoever I play does everything they can to keep the ball away from my forehand.

But beings you talk such a big game lets see your great strokes. Or are you just one of the many who just sit behind your keyboard and talk trash about everybody else but don't even play or dare show your own game.

Perhaps Becker isn't talking about strokes or technique at all, rather that Djokovic and, to a greater extent, Nadal don't have an attack-minded tennis mindset and it would be to their detriment if they were in the 80s. Perhaps Becker thinks they would be too passive in their strategy and guys like himself, Edberg etc would just overwhelm them unless they changed their current strategy completely.

Chang was really the first guy who had much higher-level success (from the 80s on) playing a basically retriever-minded game. Even then Chang was still quite attack minded whenever the opportunity came up - much moreso than even Nadal.

Oh ya a fast indoor hard court. I never new they played majors on those. I never said that becker was not a good player, but he is just talking trash because both rafa and joker are better than him.

Its funny I played in a 4.0 summer league and my record was 15-6. I am now playing in a usta 4.0 flex league and I am 6-0. And whoever I play does everything they can to keep the ball away from my forehand.

But beings you talk such a big game lets see your great strokes. Or are you just one of the many who just sit behind your keyboard and talk trash about everybody else but don't even play or dare show your own game.

Click to expand...

I have no issue with you putting Djoker and Rafa ahead of Becker, I only find it unnecessary to trash Becker yourself for what you perceive to be his motive.

I generally don't talk trash about other posters unless they are posting garbage.

One day, my friend, I may allow you to gaze upon my wondrous strokes. You must promise to behave, though.

In what world is a guy who has won 8 slams including the career slam (Agassi) not as good as a guy who has won 5 slams so far? Agassi > Djokovic

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Peak Agassi was not as dominant as Djokovic, more talented IMO, but couldnt translate it into as much dominance as Djokovic had in 2011, or even as Djokovic had to end two straight years at #1. Djokovic has also been much more consistently strong over a long span of times (6 years) than Agassi ever was at any point of his career. Alot of people forget over that 6 year stretch Djokovic was year end top 3 all 6, reached atleast 1 slam final in 5 of the 6, won Masters titles in 5 of the 6. As far back as 2008 he also had a great year, winning the Australian Open, Masters titles on both hard and clay, the YEC, and really was the #2 for that year more than Federer. Djokovic is also well on his way to most likely surpassing Agassi's career, and it isnt entirely fair to compare someone in the middle of their career to a retired player.

Yes and no. Peak Agassi was not as dominant as Djokovic, more talented IMO, but couldnt translate it into as much dominance as Djokovic had in 2011, or even as Djokovic had to end two straight years at #1. Djokovic has also been much more consistent over a long span of times (6 years) than Agassi ever was at any point of his career. Djokovic is also well on his way to most likely surpassing Agassi's career, and it isnt entirely fair to compare someone in the middle of their career to a retired player.

Yes and no. Peak Agassi was not as dominant as Djokovic, more talented IMO, but couldnt translate it into as much dominance as Djokovic had in 2011, or even as Djokovic had to end two straight years at #1. Djokovic has also been much more consistently strong over a long span of times (6 years) than Agassi ever was at any point of his career. Alot of people forget over that 6 year stretch Djokovic was year end top 3 all 6, reached atleast 1 slam final in 5 of the 6, won Masters titles in 5 of the 6. As far back as 2008 he also had a great year, winning the Australian Open, Masters titles on both hard and clay, the YEC, and really was the #2 for that year more than Federer. Djokovic is also well on his way to most likely surpassing Agassi's career, and it isnt entirely fair to compare someone in the middle of their career to a retired player.

Click to expand...

I don't care about all of that. Right NOW you cannot say Djokovic with five slams is greater than Agassi with 8 and a career slam. Djokovic may very well go on to surpass Agassi but currently Agassi > Djokovic. In terms of talent I can't see how Djokovic is close to Agassi.

Tlm, since you have such a wonderous tennis career in USTA leagues, why havent your, teams made it to the Nationals. I think I know the answer that question. You, yourself maybe somewhere between 4.0 to 4.5 level when at your best. You have played MOSTLY on teams where the skill level should be lower than 4.5 if players are rating themselves properly. In other words you are winning matches that you should definitely win for the most part. However you have teammates who may have rated themselves honestly and they do not win all of their matches as you do. I know for a fact I could beat you easily, not because I am so gifted but because you are definitely a much weaker player than I am. That does not mean you are not a good tennis player. Your forehand looks like it can be a weapon since you hit it deep and with a good amount of spin, a good combination
I also believe I know more about stringing tennis rackets since I have been stringing for 30 years and have strung for several tennis legends. All thatbeing said, I am positive that you love to start arguments and you are very accomplished at it. I await your counterattack!

Tlm, since you have such a wonderous tennis career in USTA leagues, why havent your, teams made it to the Nationals. I think I know the answer that question. You, yourself maybe somewhere between 4.0 to 4.5 level when at your best. You have played MOSTLY on teams where the skill level should be lower than 4.5 if players are rating themselves properly. In other words you are winning matches that you should definitely win for the most part. However you have teammates who may have rated themselves honestly and they do not win all of their matches as you do. I know for a fact I could beat you easily, not because I am so gifted but because you are definitely a much weaker player than I am. That does not mean you are not a good tennis player. Your forehand looks like it can be a weapon since you hit it deep and with a good amount of spin, a good combination
I also believe I know more about stringing tennis rackets since I have been stringing for 30 years and have strung for several tennis legends. All thatbeing said, I am positive that you love to start arguments and you are very accomplished at it. I await your counterattack!

Click to expand...

Well I started playing tennis at the age of 44, so if you are better than me that is not a very big deal. I never claimed to have a wondrous usta career, I was just showing my record to prove your buddy dramaqueen wrong.

The league I play in the summer is a 4.5 league, but this league is a half level higher than what it should be ranked so I classify it at 4.0. Since I won the fall season I will have to move up to this leagues 5.0 which is the highest level it has, which again would be more like a 4.5 level.

The usta flex winter league I am in is a weak 4.0 level and there is no 4.5 singles league. So your assessment of my level is pretty accurate, I did not know that this winter league was this weak and I will not be playing in it the next season.

I will just use the rest of the indoor season to practice for next springs season. I will be playing strong 4.0 to 4.5 players in pick up matches and believe me I will lose against a lot of these guys. I am by no means afraid of losing, I play mostly against better players than me.

As far as stringing goes It does not take 30 years to become a good stringer, not even close to that. I have been string for 11 years and after a few months I was a decent stringer and after a few years anyone can be come a very good stringer.

I really don't care who you have strung for or how long you have been stringing. When you say that this stringing in the 30's is the way to go but yet very few pro players use that low of tension and most are in the mid 50's it does not make much sense.

I know that the low tension poly craze is popular now and if players can have success with the low tension then great. It will definitely feel better and be easier on the arm. I have tried tensions from 34-72 lbs. with poly and many other strings and everything in between.

And a lot of it depends on the player, the racket, and the strings. I use to use gut mains with poly crosses at 48+52 lbs. and with the low powered racket I was using at that time and with the swing I was using it worked fine. But that is not the norm.

All the players I know agree that the higher the tension the better control there is and the lower the tension the more power. I always thought this was common knowledge. That does not mean that a player cannot use lower tension and have control, but on average there is better control at higher tensions.

he can not be serious. Both Nole and Rafa would destroy the field.they would destroy Becker too. he wouldn't know what hit him. the game has evolved. Boris should know better. Nole would simply read his serve and drives him crazy, left/right etc until he is done with him. Nadal would make his run around like a rabbit till he drops dead. simple

and to all Fed trolls, please control yourself, you are boring me to death.

I don't care about all of that. Right NOW you cannot say Djokovic with five slams is greater than Agassi with 8 and a career slam. Djokovic may very well go on to surpass Agassi but currently Agassi > Djokovic. In terms of talent I can't see how Djokovic is close to Agassi.

Click to expand...

yes you can because Djoko had to deal with Rafa and Roger. Agassi had to deal with a S&V Sampras. Novak is a way better player than doped Agassi who admitted he used drugs and got away with it. I'd take away all of his lousy doped 8 slams.

Other then the obvious that Fed is GOAT in any era, I don't agree with Becker at all. While Nadal & Nole may not be the favorite at Wimbledons of the 80-90's, they're no slouch on faster surfaces and are both among the best returners of the open era. If Wilander or Lendl can win the Aussie on grass and be competitive at Wimbledon, is it a stretch that these apex predators wouldn't be in the mix?

They would dictate the style of play with their defense and transition skills much as they do now on hard courts and clay I think.

You presume everyone would be playing serve and volley in a field with players like today, for instance thinking players with the exact skill sets of Nadal and Djokovic, the same ones who Becker himself claims would be irrelevant in that era, would be his main rivals in even a serve and volley based era, which is a silly assumption. In an era of serve and volleyers Federer would be in alot more trouble relative to his current dominance in the baseline only era, as while they dont exist today in the past there were MANY players with both better serves and especialy better volleys than Federer. In the 90s alone Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek (yes 1 slam wonder Krajicek of all people), were superior to Federer in both serving and volleying ability. Edberg and Rafter were much superior in volleying. Philipoussis and Ivanisevic superior in serving.

Click to expand...

you are forgetting the key ingredient that comprises Federer's game which others of the 90s era didn't have, and that is an Amazing footwork, anticipation, adaptation and ability to turn defence to offence. There is absolutely no parallel to that. This is visibly obvious in his match against a serve and volleying Sampras in 2001 where he was doing S&V and hitting outrageous winners from nowhere.

It's impossible to say, really. Obviously, Djokovic and especially Nadal wouldn't have used the same technique, but if they still played in similar styles, I don't see why they couldn't succeed in the 80s or 90s. Borg dominated with a heavy-topspin game even back in the 70s. Wilander had fewer weapons than either, and he was very successful. Courier and Agassi both had success on all surfaces from behind the baseline. Nadal and Djokovic are both supremely talented, and they would find a way to win in whatever conditions.